But he still may invoke what critics call the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules that would limit the use of the filibuster, force senators to hold the floor in certain situations and require those stalling legislation to deliver 41 votes, several people familiar with the matter said Thursday.

Text Size

The contents of a filibuster reform package are not yet finalized, sources say, and Reid is still trying to cut a bipartisan deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to avert a partisan showdown on the floor next week. But Reid seems to have discarded one of the more far-reaching proposals sought by liberals — forcing senators to actually carry out a filibuster — because of fears that the plan would effectively kill the potent delaying tactic used frequently by the minority party.

Still, there’s a serious chance that Reid and McConnell will fail to cut a bipartisan deal. And that could prompt the Democratic leader to spearhead his own package and seek to change the rules by 51 votes — rather than a two-thirds majority that is typically required. That move would have major ramifications for the future of how the institution operates and prompt a procedural war with the GOP.

Critics call that process the “nuclear option,” saying future majorities would then be able to cite the precedent and decide to change whatever rules they want with just 51 votes, effectively turning the body into the House and running roughshod over the minority party. Supporters argue the tactic is well within bounds of the Constitution that allows the Senate to set its own rules, arguing it would allow a simple majority to make the body more workable.

Reid is considering several significant changes to Senate procedures, several of which Republicans strongly oppose. But the plan Reid is weighing would not go as far as outspoken Senate liberals are advocating, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who is privately urging progressive activists to pressure Reid into pushing for a more aggressive package.

Reid’s most pressing demand is to eliminate filibusters used to prevent debate on legislation from starting. He also wants to end filibusters used to prevent the Senate from convening conference committees with the House. And he’s eager to pare back the use of filibusters on certain presidential nominations.

Senators could still filibuster in any number of situations under this approach. But Reid is weighing whether to shift the burden of the filibuster from those who are seeking to defeat it onto those who are threatening to wage one. Rather than requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster, Reid is considering requiring at least 41 senators to sustain a filibuster. That would amount to a subtle shift to force opponents to ensure every senator is present in order to mount a filibuster.